What makes followers loyal?

The role of
influencer interactivity in building influencer
brand equity
Sunghee Jun
The Institute of Management Research, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea, and
Jisu Yi
Department of Business Administration, Sejong University, Seoul, South Korea

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to present a mechanism that explains how followers become loyal to social media influencers. It suggests influencer
interactivity as a unique feature of influencer brands and investigates how it affects influencer authenticity, emotional attachment, and thus brand
loyalty.
Design/methodology/approach – A cross-sectional survey of 282 social media users was conducted to estimate the conceptual model.
Participants were asked to respond to the survey questions based on their perceptions of a specific influencer they follow on social media. The
relationships among variables were tested via structural equation modeling.
Findings – The findings show that influencer interactivity is positively related to influencer authenticity and emotional attachment. Influencer
authenticity mediates the effect of interactivity on emotional attachment and directly affects brand trust. Furthermore, the results demonstrate that
followers’ emotional attachment to influencer brands increases brand loyalty through brand trust.
Originality/value – This study is the first to approach influencers as a brand, rather than a brand endorser. Specifically, this study conceptualizes
the influencer brand’s interactivity and finds a link between influencer interactivity and the followers’ perception of influencer authenticity. It
discusses why influencer interactivity and authenticity play key roles in shaping influencer brand equity. This study contributes to both the human
brands and the influencer marketing literature by proposing a model to understand how the brand equity of the influencer brand is formed.
Keywords Brand trust, Brand loyalty, Authenticity, Emotional attachment, Digital marketing, Interactivity, Human brand, Influencer brand
Paper type Research paper

Introduction become the most powerful and cutting-edge brand management

The ways in which people obtain information about products
and services and make purchasing decisions are changing
completely with the development of social media-based online
platforms, such as blogs and social networking services.
According to Statista (2019), 77% of Americans have a social
media profile. The term “influencer” is the most envied label in
the social media world, and it symbolizes popularity and status
that come from having a large following of passionate
individuals. Influencers refer to content creators with many
followers on social media platforms, such as Instagram,
Snapchat and YouTube. They share tastes and information
with other individuals in various fields, including fashion,
beauty, hobbies and everyday life, as well as provide product
reviews.
Influencers refer to people who hold influence over potential
buyers of a brand or product, thus helping the brand’s marketing
activities (Brown and Hayes, 2008). Influencer marketing has
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-02-2019-2280]
tool. The academia has started finding ways on how to maximize
the effectiveness of influencer marketing, which is becoming a
popular strategy in real marketing contexts (Laroche et al., 2013;
Lou and Yuan, 2018). Although numerous studies have
examined the role of influencers as brand endorsers and tested
the effectiveness of influencer marketing, no study has
investigated the influencer as a holistic brand. The current work
defines influencers as independent human brands and presents a
conceptual framework for the relationship between influencer
brands and consumers. Influencers need to be valued and
studied as a type of human brand. Research on influencer brands
could provide a premise for influencer marketing, which is
already highly active in the marketplace. In addition, influencers
have unique characteristics that are not present in other human
brands such as celebrities.
This study complements the current literature on human
brand, as well as influencer marketing, by identifying how an
influencer brand’s equity is formed. Specifically, it highlights
the uniqueness of influencer interactivity and its impacts on
influencer authenticity, emotional attachment and ultimately
Received 28 February 2019
Revised 8 September 2019
20 March 2020
25 April 2020
27 April 2020
Accepted 27 May 2020
 Building influencer brand equity
Sunghee Jun and Jisu Yi
influencer brand loyalty. Although practitioners have started to
pay attention to interactivity as a means of influencer marketing
(Garnès, 2019), few academic studies have investigated the role
of interactivity in the context of influencers. Interactivity is a
unique feature that distinguishes the influencer from other
human brands or conventional brands. The content created by
influencers is mainly implemented online, especially on social
media platforms. The development of new media and major
social platforms, such as Instagram and Facebook, makes it
easier for people to interact online (Larsson, 2018). Influencers
can actively endorse products and interact with their followers
24 hours a day by using the internet. Along with interactivity,
authenticity is another important feature of influencer brands.
Moulard et al. (2016) conceptualized brand authenticity as the
degree of brand managers’ intrinsic motivation in providing
their products. Followers have recently become skeptical of
influencers’ commercial motivations and are demanding that
influencer brands have a high level of authenticity. In this study,
we suggest that interactivity increases the followers’ perception
of influencer authenticity, and thus enhances their emotional
attachment and brand loyalty toward influencer brands.
Furthermore, this study also presents a mechanism of how brand
loyalty is formed via emotional attachment and brand trust.
In the next section, the literature on human brands and
interactivity are reviewed and hypotheses are presented. We
then test the proposed model by using structural equation
modeling. We conclude the study with a discussion of the
implications and future research suggestions.
Theoretical background
Influencer as a brand
Human brands refer to well-known persons who are subject to
marketing communication practices (Thomson, 2006).
Various types of human brands including celebrities, fashion
models, entertainers, CEOs, politicians, sportspeople, chefs
and artists, are being actively examined in academia nowadays
(Gamson, 2011). The concept of human brands has become
increasingly prominent through the widespread use of cable
television, the internet and social media (Furedi, 2010).
As the influence and power of influencers over consumers
grew, it became important to approach influencers as a type of
human brand and explore their brand components. In contrast
to a few studies that included conventional celebrities as
influencers (Djafarova and Rushworth, 2017; Jin and Phua,
2014), recent studies distinguish between the two concepts and
place more emphasis on social media influencers (Audrezet
et al., 2018; Hearn and Schoenhoff, 2016; Khamis et al., 2017;
Marwick and Boyd, 2011; Raun, 2018). The brand-building
procedures of those two entities are clearly different (Djafarova
and Rushworth, 2017; Hearn and Schoenhoff, 2016; Khamis
et al., 2017; Marwick and Boyd, 2011). While celebrities have
built their influence mainly through traditional channels, such
as television and magazines, influencers have become
influential through social media, and especially by posting their
own content on it. Influencers gain their followers by creating
unique content based on their expertise in a specific field, such
as food, technology, fashion, games and sports. Influencer
brands are also unique in that they have real-time, direct,
rapid and interactive two-way communication with followers.
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Through active interactions, followers may think that
influencers perceive them as special individuals, and not just
anonymous members of a large group of followers. Such
interactivity can enhance the emotional attachment of people
who are following the influencer brand (Labrecque, 2014).
Considering that the interaction of existing human brands or
conventional brands is mostly based on one-way recognition,
interactivity is expected to have a significant influence on
influencer brand equity.
Unique feature of influencer interactivity
Influencer interactivity is defined as two-way communication
between influencers and followers, which occurs via continuous
comments and feedback on the influencer’s social media
account. Prior forms of media had difficulty achieving instant
and direct two-way communication (McMillan and Hwang,
2002). However, influencers can now interact with their
followers or subscribers in real-time due to advancements on
the internet. Followers can respond positively or negatively via
their likes and replies for everyone to see or they can even send
messages directly to influencers on social media.
In marketing research, the concept of interactivity has mainly
been applied to brand websites, with emphasis placed on the
mechanical interactivity of the website (Coyle and Thorson,
2001; Ha and James, 1998; Steuer, 1992; Thorson and
Rodgers, 2006). Mechanical interactivity is a structural
element of the internet platform (McMillan, 2002; Rafaeli,
1988), which is measured by how actively a website responds.
Mechanical interactivity is similar to the concept of functional
interactivity, which refers to the interactive functions on a
website (Lee and Park, 2013) or responsiveness (Thomson,
2006). Mechanical interactivity is mainly concerned with the
reactivity of the website and it does not view the subject of
interactions as an individual (Cho and Cheon, 2005; Thorson
and Rodgers, 2006). In other words, mechanical interactivity is
considered intangible; it is not a human being but a company,
in spite of the fact that the subject is a staff member.
Influencer interactivity has similarities to mechanical
interactivity because it too is social media-based communication.
However, influencer interactivity cannot be fully explained by the
concept of mechanical interactivity. For influencer brands, the
subject interacting with customers can be clearly identified as
human, that is, an influencer, who has his/her own thoughts and
feelings. Hence, influencer interactivity has an additional
characteristic of interpersonal interactivity and communication
between individuals.
Meanwhile, it is necessary to discuss why interactivity plays a
key role in particular in influencer brands in contrast to
traditional brands (e.g. Nike or Starbucks) or other human
brands (e.g. celebrities, CEOs and politicians). Interactivity in
traditional brands is limited to mechanical interactivity of a
brand’s website, in which consumers hardly feel the subject of
interactions to be tangible or an identifiable person. Besides,
this website interaction belongs to customer care or service,
which is an augment product of Kotler et al.’s (2018) concept.
Augment products, such as installation and delivery, are the
outermost dimensions of the core product definition and are
therefore not essential in defining the brand’s focal
characteristics. Thus, the interactivity of traditional brands (i.e.
brand website’s interactivity) is not a major component of
 Building influencer brand equity
Sunghee Jun and Jisu Yi
brand loyalty. On the other hand, the interactivity of other
human brands refers to the degree of interaction on their
official or personal social media accounts. The interactivity of
other human brands is not considered as important as that of
influencer brand in building brand equity for the following
reasons. First, in contrast to their experiences with influencers,
customers recognize that most interactions with other human
brands are not direct feedback from the human brand itself.
Instead, customers assume that the account is managed or
censored by a human brand administrator, and this indirect
communication hardly induces relatedness with the human
brand. Second, certain top-tier celebrities never communicate
with their fans, thereby proving that interactivity might not be
an essential factor for strong celebrity brands. Finally, for other
human brands, social media is just one of the multiple
communication channels they can use to build brand
familiarity (Johns and English, 2016). Considering the various
alternatives (e.g. televisions or publications), interactivity on
social media is not seen as an essential element in shaping
brand loyalty for other human brands. While influencers will
have difficulty creating intimacy with followers and brand
loyalty if interactivity is not involved because social media is
their only communication channel. Thus, the effect of
interactivity on traditional brands or other human brands will
not be as significant as its influence on influencer brand. In
sum, the influencer interactivity has unique features, and its
impact on brand equity is expected to be large, particularly that
of influencer brands.
Influencer interactivity and authenticity
Influencer interactivity can enhance the follower’s perception
of influencer authenticity.
Influencer authenticity here is conceptualized as the extent of
followers’ inferences that an influencer is devoted to creating
content by intrinsic and self-gratifying motivations. Two recent
studies provide the basis of this conceptualization. First,
Moulard et al. (2016) suggested that consumers infer a high
level of brand authenticity when they perceive that the brand’s
managers are intrinsically motivated and passionate about
providing their products. In the case of influencer brands,
influencers themselves are brand managers, so consumers can
perceive their passion more directly and vividly. Second,
influencer authenticity is also related to the concept of
passionate authenticity suggested by Audrezet et al. (2018).
Passionate authenticity can be attributed to the self-gratifying
activity that the influencer really enjoys the content creation
process (Audrezet et al., 2018). This intrinsic motivation
eventually reflects the true self of the influencer, thus improving
the authenticity perceived by followers.
The rationales of the relationship between interactivity and
authenticity are established by previous findings that active
interactions of brands can make consumers feel more respected
and increased trust toward the company (Dwivedi and
McDonald, 2018; Kim et al., 2012; Tan et al., 2019).
Influencer interactivity occurs when an influencer
communicates actively with his/her followers online. Feedback
from the influencer attracts the active participation of the
followers, such as share, comment and subscribe, resulting
in constant communication. In the continuous two-way
communication, the feeling of being respected becomes even
Journal of Product & Brand Management
more salient, and thus the authenticity perception toward the
communication partner, influencer brands, can increase. If an
influencer pays attention to the needs of each follower and
responds quickly, people feel that the influencer is very
passionate and devoted to their work. Meanwhile, the
interactivity of traditional brands is unlikely to lead to the
perception of passionate authenticity because it is evident that
the brand manager is paid for their communication work. For
influencer brands, however, a higher level of interactivity gives
the impression that the influencer really enjoys their work and
has immersed themself in the process of responding personally
to followers and communicating in real-time. In other words, it
is assumed that their interaction is driven by pure intrinsic
motivation. In sum, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1. Influencer interactivity is positively related to followers’
perception of influencer authenticity.
Influencer interactivity and emotional attachment
Emotional attachment is a relationship-based construct
between an individual and another consumption entity (e.g. a
person, object or brand) and reflects the emotional bond
between them (Hazan and Shaver, 1994; Park and MacInnis,
2006). Thomson et al. (2005) highlighted the emotional
dimensions of brand attachment, which reflects the bond
between a consumer and a specific brand, and involves feelings
toward the brand, including affection, passion and connection
(Thomson et al., 2005).
Influencer interactivity could lead to followers’ emotional
attachment to the influencer brand. In previous studies,
interpersonal interactivity is seen as quite similar to relatedness.
Relatedness is defined as a person’s need to feel a sense of
closeness with others and is closely related to the emotional
attachment toward celebrity brands (Deci and Ryan, 2002;
Ilicic et al., 2016; Thomson, 2006). Likewise, enhancing
intimacy and interaction is important in forming emotional
attachments in influencer brands. Although influencers and
followers do not necessarily know each other, consumers feel
relatedness toward influencers through active two-way
communications on social media. An emotional attachment
could strengthen when consumers perceive a brand as having
human-like characteristics, in the way that people can have a
vivid emotional attachment toward a celebrity brand
(Kowalczyk and Pounders, 2016). Influencer brands, as a type
of human brand, enable the most active interaction between the
brand and its followers in real-time. Therefore, consumers can
be emotionally attached to influencers. As a result, followers
may build up attachments toward the influencer even if they do
not know each other in reality.
H2. Influencer interactivity is positively related to emotional
attachment toward influencers.
Influencer interactivity and brand trust
Brand trust refers to the willingness of the average consumer to
rely on a belief that a brand will consistently perform a certain
level of function (Doney and Cannon, 1997; Moorman et al.,
1993; Zehir et al., 2011). Brand trust reduces consumers’
uncertainty when making rational judgments in uncertain
 Building influencer brand equity
Sunghee Jun and Jisu Yi
situations (Zehir et al., 2011). At the same time, trust involves
an inference regarding the good intention to share values and
goals with consumers and to do their best to achieve the desired
outcome (Doney and Cannon, 1997). In sum, consumers
incorporate beliefs about reliability, safety and honesty in the
operationalization of brand trust.
Interactivity can directly and positively impact not only the
brand attachment but also brand trust. People’s experience of
brand trust in social media marketing increases with their online
interactivity (Tatar and Eren-Erdo
gmus , 2016). It was also
found that if a brand gives practical answers to consumers
through its microblogs and actively interacts, trust toward that
brand is improved (Coyle et al., 2012). Interactivity means
continuous communication with followers, which is manifested
when an influencer responds promptly and proactively to a small
or even unimportant comment. This continuous communication
helps followers feel that their relationship with the influencer is
safe and stable. Thus, if the influencer communicates with their
followers actively, then people will feel that the influencer brand
is safe and capable of providing positive results.
H3. Influencer interactivity is positively related to influencer
brand trust.
Influencer authenticity and emotional attachment
In addition to interactivity, authenticity is one of the most
important factors in shaping the emotional attachment to the
influencer brand. Authenticity means genuine, real and true
(Beverland and Farrelly, 2010; Preece, 2015; Thomson et al.,
2005). Self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 2002) and
attribution theory (Jones and Davis, 1965) argue that
authenticity stems from self-determined behavior that is
innately satisfying and enjoyable and is attributed to intrinsic
motivations from a person’s true self. In the brand context,
brand authenticity refers to the degree to which consumers
perceive the degree of the brand manager’s enthusiasm and
devotion toward the production and management of the
product, as well as the level of his/her sincerity as regard
internal intention (Moulard et al., 2016). By applying it to
influencer brands, influencer brand authenticity is defined as
the degree to which followers perceive the influencer’s passion
and sincerity in content creation, as well as the strength of the
influencer’s internal intention. Specifically, authentic influencers
create content from internal motivations (e.g. innately satisfying
and enjoyable) rather than external or commercial motivations.
In the flow of existing studies of human brands, authenticity
is discussed as a key element in forming emotional attachments
(Ilicic and Webster, 2014; Kowalczyk and Pounders, 2016;
Malär et al., 2011; Marwick and Boyd, 2011). Marwick and
Boyd (2011) insist that consumers’ perceived authenticity of
the celebrity fosters an emotional bond or feeling of closeness
with the celebrity. This relationship would be consistent for
influencer brands. High authenticity increases emotional
attachment through familiarity and positive impressions.
Notably, the effect of authenticity would be more salient for
influencer brands than other human brands because consumers
can strongly infer authenticity from the frequent and self-
managed content of influencer brands. Accordingly, the
following hypothesis is offered:
Journal of Product & Brand Management
H4. Influencer authenticity is positively related to emotional
attachment toward influencers.
Influencer authenticity and brand trust
Brand trust and brand authenticity are closely related to each
other, but they are distinct constructs. The former focuses on
the outcome and the quality of the product, whereas the latter
focuses on the process and the motivation of brand production.
Brand trust refers to the confident expectations of the brand’s
reliability and intentions (Delgado-Ballester and Luis
Munuera-Aleman, 2005) and the willingness of the average
consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to perform its stated
function (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Morgan and Hunt,
1994). By contrast, brand authenticity includes comprehensive
inferences on brand heritage in terms of individuality,
consistency and continuity (Eggers et al., 2013; Hernandez-
Fernandez and Lewis, 2019; Schallehn et al., 2014).
Brand trust can increase when consumers perceive brand
authenticity because they feel that the brand is sincerely
managed (Eggers et al., 2013; Napoli et al., 2014; Hernandez-
Fernandez and Lewis, 2019). Similarly, if followers feel that the
influencer really enjoys content creation without expecting
external compensations, then they become more confident that
the content reflects the influencer’s own thought rather than
being manipulated or edited by the third party’s intervention.
Overall, followers are expected to trust influencer brands when
influencers create content with sincerity and enthusiasm as a
result of their internal motivations.
H5. Influencer authenticity is positively related to influencer
brand trust.
Emotional attachment, brand trust and loyalty
Attachment theories from a psychological context argue that
people want to become close and increase their commitment to
an object with which they are strongly attached (Drigotas and
Rusbult, 1992; Hazan and Shaver, 1994). In the marketing
context, this desire for proximity and commitment can be
interpreted as a willingness to maintain a long-term relationship
with a brand, that is, brand loyalty (Garbarino and Johnson,
1999; Malär et al., 2011; Thomson et al., 2005). Another
relevant indicator of commitment is the extent to which the
individual remains loyal to the brand (Garbarino and Johnson,
1999).
Substantial research has explored the relationship between
brand attachment and brand loyalty (Belaid and TemessekBehi,
2011; Grisaffe and Nguyen, 2011; Vlachos and Vrechopoulos,
2012). Brand loyalty plays a central role among the various
components of brand equity and is particularly important in
determining the long-term relationships between consumers and
brands. In the current work, we focus on the loyalty of the
influencer brand and predict a causal relationship with emotional
attachment.
Thomson (2006) noted that emotional attachment is a
predictive factor of satisfied, trusting and committed
relationships between consumers and brands. In addition,
prior research has demonstrated that consumers’ emotional
attachments positively affect brand attitudes and purchase
intentions, along with word-of-mouth (Ilicic and Webster, 2014;
 Building influencer brand equity
Sunghee Jun and Jisu Yi
Kowalczyk and Pounders, 2016; Park et al., 2010). The social
interactions of consumers with blogs and social media could
ultimately affect brand attitude and loyalty (Colliander and
Dahlén, 2011; Labrecque, 2014). Emotional attachment
could be a significant determinant of loyal behavior (Grisaffe and
Nguyen, 2011; Vlachos and Vrechopoulos, 2012). This trend
also applies to human brands and emotional attachment to
human brands positively impact brand loyalty (Loroz and Braig,
2015). Followers are likely to have the desire to maintain the
relationship with the influencer brand when they feel a strong
emotional attachment toward the brand. As such, building an
emotional attachment is a critical task for influencer brand
loyalty.
Brand trust is defined by the belief that a brand will provide
consistent and competent quality (Chaudhuri and Holbrook,
2001; Delgado-Ballester and Luis Munuera-Aleman, 2005;
Doney and Cannon, 1997), which is not a short-term
phenomenon but a slowly evolving concept drawn from past
experience and interaction (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999).
Thus, emotional attachment due to interactivity and
authenticity positively affects building long-term trust in the
brand. Brand trust can also positively affect brand loyalty.
Brand trust consists of undoubted expectations of the brand’s
reliability and positively impacts brand loyalty, which is the
main asset of brand equity (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001;
Delgado-Ballester and Luis Munuera-Aleman, 2005). In sum,
we expect that followers’ emotional attachment should enhance
brand trust and loyalty toward the influencer brand, and thus
suggest the following hypotheses:
H6. Followers’ emotional attachment positively affects loyalty
toward the influencer brand.
H7. Followers’ emotional attachment positively affects brand
trust thereby leading to loyalty toward the influencer brand.
To sum up, we propose a conceptual model explaining the
factors behind followers’ loyalty to influencer brands, as shown
in Figure 1.
Empirical study methods
Participants were recruited online via Prolific Academic. We
allowed only people who have Instagram accounts and are
following the Instagram accounts of influencers to participate.
Figure 1 Conceptual model
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Of the 302 respondents, 20 did not meet these conditions. The
282 participants completed the survey and received about $1 in
compensation. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of
the two conditions (i.e. high vs low attachment). Those in the
high-attachment condition were asked to recall a specific
influencer whom they were currently following and felt highly
attached to. Those in the low-attachment condition were asked
to recall a specific influencer whom they were currently
following but did not feel attached to. As such, samples of
varying levels of emotional attachment could be collected
( m high = 3.03, m low = 2.52, t = 2.985, p < 0.003). The
subsequent questions were the same across both conditions.
Respondents were asked to write down the influencer’s name
and any content that the influencer recently posted. Following
the writing task, they responded to a questionnaire of focal
constructs. Finally, participants were asked to respond with
demographic information, such as gender, age and usage of
social network services. In total, 59% were women and their
mean age was 27.6 years. In total, 50% of the sample reported
logging on to Instagram more than five times per day ( m = 6.34).
The questionnaire used a seven-point scale anchored by
1 (“not at all”) and 7 (“very often”). All items were revised
based on previous literature to fit the influencer brand context.
Influencer interactivity was adapted from McMillan and
Hwang (2002) and Thorson and Rodgers (2006). McMillan
and Hwang (2002) verified that interactivity was divided into
three dimensions: real-time conversation, no-delay and
engagement. Thorson and Rodgers (2006) adapted the items
from McMillan and Hwang (2002) in the context of the
relationship between the website and the representative of a
campaign. Considering that influencers interact in real-time
with their followers on social media, we modified the five items
related to person-to-person interactivity, that is, between the
influencer and followers. Three items on influencer
authenticity were adapted from Moulard et al. (2016), who
measured brand authenticity by focusing on whether brand
managers have an intrinsic motivation, as well as passion and
devotion to offering products. Emotional attachment was
measured by revising three items from Kowalczyk and
Pounders (2016). Three items on brand trust were adapted
from Moulard et al. (2016). Loyalty consists of behavioral and
attitudinal components (Dick and Basu, 1994). Oliver’s (1997)
definition of brand loyalty focused on behavior in which
consumers continually intend to buy specific brands. From this
 Building influencer brand equity Journal of Product & Brand Management
Sunghee Jun and Jisu Yi

perspective, we measured influencer brand loyalty by
modifying three items from Yoo et al. (2000), Pappu et al.
(2005) and Su and Tong (2015).
Results
Measurement model
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using
AMOS 22.0 to investigate the validity of the constructs.
The measurement model acceptably fit the data. The
standardized weights for all factors were above 0.6 (Table 1),
and the chi-squared value divided by the degrees of freedom
(CMIN/df = 268.305/111 = 2.417; p < 0.001) was below 3.
The comparative fit index (CFI; 0.958), normed fit index
(NFI; 0.931), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI; 0.949) and RMSEA
(0.071; LO90 = 0.060; HI90 = 0.082) all satisfy the adequate
fit criteria suggested by Bagozzi and Yi (1988) and Bentler
(1990). The CFA results demonstrate that all weights are
highly significant (p < 0.01). Further, Table 2 depicts
the acceptable scale reliability of the measurement model.
The reliability indices, that is, Cronbach’s alpha values and
composite reliability (CR), were above 0.7, indicating good
reliability (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). AVE for all factors was
above 0.5, thus ensuring adequate internal consistency
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity was
investigated by comparing the correlation and the square root
of the AVE value of each factor (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). All
correlations were significant under the 0.001 level and were
smaller than the square root of the AVE, thus demonstrating
acceptable discriminant validity. Overall, the CFA results suggest
that the measurement model shows a good fit and satisfies
convergent and discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2010).
Structural model
The research hypotheses were tested using structural equation
modeling. We applied a bootstrap procedure (2,000 subsamples)
to define the bias-corrected confidence intervals (BCCI) of the
total, direct and indirect effects. This method allows accurate
estimates to be obtained for the non-normally distributed data
(Enders, 2005) and for a structural model including mediation
effects (Cheung and Lau, 2008). The fit indices indicate that the
suggested structure model represents the data set well. The
relative chi-square value (CMIN/df = 258.389/110 = 2.349;
p < 0.001) was below 3. The CFI (0.968), IFI (0.968), TLI
(0.961) and RMSEA (0.069, [LO90 = 0.058; HI90 = 0.080])
also demonstrated reasonable model fit.

Table 1 Measurement items

Construct Items SW
Influencer interactivity Interacting with this influencer was like having a real conversation 0.785
I perceive this influencer to be sensitive to my needs for information 0.784
This influencer would respond to me quickly and efficiently 0.920
This influencer allows me to communicate directly with her or him 0.855
This influencer will talk back to me if I post a message 0.914
Influencer authenticity This influencer has a true passion for his or her field 0.830
This influencer wants to do his or her best at providing his/her content 0.859
This influencer is devoted to what s/he does on Instagram 0.652
Emotional attachment I am emotionally connected with this influencer 0.904
This influencer says something true and deep about who I am as a person 0.881
If this influencer was to no longer be in the spotlight, I would feel anxiety 0.627
Brand trust I trust this influencer 0.951
I could rely on this influencer 0.882
This influencer is an honest person 0.897
Loyalty I would continue following his/her account 0.707
I will keep on following his or her account as long as s/he provides me with satisfying content 0.873
I would love to recommend this influencer to my friends 0.896
Note: Values in the last column are standardized weights from CFA analysis

Table 2 Reliabilities (a and CR), AVE and correlations

Construct Mean SD a CR AVE (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) Interactivity 3.665 1.61 0.93 0.912 0.542 0.736
(2) Authenticity 6.102 0.999 0.82 0.801 0.576 0.413 0.759

(3) Attachment 2.768 1.451 0.84 0.781 0.549 0.398 0.363 0.741

(4) Brand trust 5.206 1.447 0.93 0.857 0.666 0.489 0.750 0.580 0.816

(5) Loyalty 5.359 1.424 0.84 0.842 0.641 0.412 0.607 0.696 0.795 0.801

Notes: a = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted;
values in the diagonal components show the square root of
average variances extracted (AVE); Values in the under diagonal components show the correlations between two constructs; all the correlations are significant
at the 0.01 level
 Building influencer brand equity Journal of Product & Brand Management
Sunghee Jun and Jisu Yi

Table 3 and Figure 2 present the direct path coefficients. H1
predicted the relationship between interactivity and
authenticity. The parameter of the path coefficient shows that
influencer interactivity significantly and positively affected
influencer authenticity ( b = 0.389; p < 0.001; BCCI = [0.291,
0.479]), thereby supporting H1. As anticipated in H2,
influencer interactivity significantly and positively affected
emotional attachment ( b = 0.242; p < 0.001; BCCI = [0.131,
0.364]). We further investigated if authenticity mediates the
relation between interactivity and emotional attachment. We
followed the approach of Zhao et al. (2010), who evaluated all
relationships simultaneously instead of separately via the three-
step process of Baron and Kenny (1986). The indirect
relationship between interactivity and emotional attachment
mediated by authenticity is positive and significant ( b = 0.138;
p < 0.001; BCCI = [0.095, 0.196]). As both direct and indirect
relationships are statistically significant, the partial mediation of
authenticity in the relationship between interactivity and
emotional attachment was confirmed. Moreover, H3 was also
supported from the results that influencer interactivity
significantly and positively affected brand trust ( b = 0.122;
p = 0.004; BCCI = [0.056, 0.189]).
H4 and H5 posited the influence of influencer authenticity
to emotional attachment and brand trust, respectively. As
anticipated, influencer authenticity significantly and
positively affected emotional attachment ( b = 0.354;
p < 0.001; BCCI = [0.253, 0.452]) and brand trust ( b = 0.674;
p < 0.001; BCCI = [0.594, 0.748]). Hence, H4 and H5 were
supported.
H6 predicted that emotional attachment and brand loyalty are
directly and positively related. The result indicated that
emotional attachment was significantly and positively related
with influencer loyalty ( b = 0.348; p < 0.001; BCCI = [0.258,
0.433]), thereby supporting H6. Moreover, the direct paths
from emotional attachment to brand trust ( b = 0.232;
p < 0.001; BCCI = [0.157, 0.314]) and from brand trust to
loyalty ( b = 0.598; p < 0.001; BCCI = [0.511, 0.675]) were
also significant. Finally, the indirect relationships between
emotional attachment and loyalty were examined to test H7,
which proposed the mediating role of brand trust in such a
relationship. Based on the approach of Zhao et al. (2010), the
bootstrapping results indicate that the indirect relationship
between emotional attachment and loyalty mediated by brand
trust is positive and significant ( b = 0.139; p < 0.001;
BCCI = [0.094, 0.190]). Considering the significant direct
relationship between emotional attachment and loyalty, the
results supported complementary mediation as defined by
Zhao et al. (2010) or partial mediation as defined by Baron and
Kenny (1986).
Discussion
In this study, we suggest a conceptual model to understand how
relationships between consumers as followers and influencers are
established. We focus on influencer interactivity, which is a
unique feature of influencer brands and investigated its role in the
influencer brand’s equity formation process. In particular, we
revealed the relationship between influencer interactivity and the
followers’ perception of influencer authenticity. Key findings of

Table 3 Estimation results for path coefficient

Direct path Standardized coefficient BCCI Two-tailed p-value
Influencer interactivity fi Influencer authenticity 0.389 [0.291, 0.479] <0.001
Influencer interactivity fi Emotional attachment 0.242 [0.131, 0.364] <0.001
Influencer interactivity fi Brand trust 0.122 [0.056, 0.189] 0.004
Influencer authenticity fi Emotional attachment 0.354 [0.253, 0.452] <0.001
Influencer authenticity fi Brand trust 0.674 [0.594, 0.748] <0.001
Emotional attachment fi Loyalty 0.348 [0.258, 0.433] <0.001
Emotional attachment fi Brand trust 0.232 [0.157, 0.314] <0.001
Brand trust ! loyalty 0.598 [0.511, 0.675] <0.001

Figure 2 Structural model path coefficients

 Building influencer brand equity
Sunghee Jun and Jisu Yi
the structural equation modeling analysis are as follows. First,
influencer interactivity leads to various positive outcomes
regarding influencer brands’ equity. It increases the followers’
perception of influencer authenticity and emotional attachment
toward influencers. It is also notable that influencer authenticity
mediates the impact of interactivity on emotional attachment. In
other words, active interactions enhance authenticity toward the
influencer and thus enhance the followers’ emotional bond with
his/her. The results also indicate that influencer interactivity
affects brand trust, and ultimately, brand loyalty. Our findings
are meaningful considering that vivid interactivity is a unique
characteristic of influencer brands. Previous literature has studied
the interactions of brand websites/pages (Labrecque, 2014; Song
and Zinkhan, 2008) or celebrity endorsers (Chung and Cho,
2017). However, such types of interaction are far more limited
than those of influencer brands, which actively create their
own content via social media. Influencers’ direct two-way
communication and speedy reaction can create an impression
that s/he is listening to the audience and sensitive to the
audiences’ needs (McMillan and Hwang, 2002; Song and
Zinkhan, 2008). Our findings suggest that this unique feature of
influencer brands plays a key role in formulating brand equity.
Second, influencer authenticity is another key determinant of
emotional attachment and brand trust. These findings support
previous claims that highly authentic brands enable consumers to
establish a strong emotional connection with a brand (Liao and
Ma, 2009; Napoli et al., 2016) and brand trust (Eggers et al.,
2013; Hernandez-Fernandez and Lewis, 2019; Napoli
et al., 2014). Brand authenticity has been increasingly
emphasized among modern consumers, who seek undisputed
credibility in their consumption experiences (Moulard et al.,
2015; Thomson et al., 2005). Influencer authenticity may
become an essential virtue, especially in situations where cases of
fake accounts or the manipulation of follower numbers often
occur. Our results suggest that frequent unfaithful or provocative
postings that are made simply to increase the number of followers
do not help strengthen emotional ties with followers and their
trust in the brand. Third, we also uncover the key outcomes of
emotional attachment to the influencer brand. Specifically,
emotional attachment positively affects loyalty toward the
influencer. In line with the research stream on brand attachment
(Park et al., 2010; Rossiter and Bellman, 2012; Vlachos et al.,
2010), the present study demonstrates that emotional
attachment positively affects the behavioral intentions of
followers to have long-term relationships with influencers.
Finally, brand trust plays an important role in relationships
between followers and influencers. Specifically, brand trust
complementarily mediates the impact of emotional attachment
on loyalty to the influencer brand. Such a result demonstrates
that feelings of attachment lead to a high desire to believe that the
influencer will fulfill his/her promises (Belaid and TemessekBehi,
2011). In addition, this increased trust affects the consumer’s
intentions to have a long-term relationship. This finding is a
valuable contribution to our understanding of emotional
attachment and its outcomes.
Theoretical and managerial implications
From a theoretical standpoint, this study makes the following
significant contributions. First, this study serves as the first step in
Journal of Product & Brand Management
defining and measuring the concept of influencer interactivity.
Based on its real-time and the two-way interactions via social
media, it emerges that the interactivity of the influencers needs to
be defined differently from that of brand websites/pages
(Labrecque, 2014; Song and Zinkhan, 2008) or existing human
brands (Chung and Cho, 2017). We modified the construct of
interactivity to match the characteristics of influencers’
interactions in social media. The interactivity that we proposed in
this study may be used to measure the extent of the perceived
interactivity of various individuals in the social media
environment in future research. Second, the current study
contributes to the research on influencer authenticity. As far as
we know, this is the first study to examine the relationship
between the two key features of influencer brands: influencer
interactivity and influencer authenticity. In addition, unlike
previous studies focusing on the influencer authenticity of certain
endorsements, the current study focuses on the authenticity of
influencers’ overall activities. Considering that consumers of
influencer marketing now require influencers to have a high level
of passionate authenticity, authenticity management is essential
to bring successful outcomes to both the influencers and the
endorsed brand (Audrezet et al., 2018; Kay et al., 2020). The
current research suggests a significant determinant of influencer
authenticity, interactivity and thus extends the literature on
influencer authenticity management. Third, this study expands
the knowledge base of emotional attachment to human brands by
investigating its antecedents and outcomes. Prior research
suggests inconclusive knowledge about brand attachment
because its antecedents (Grisaffe and Nguyen, 2011; Malär et al.,
2011; Thomson, 2006; Thomson et al., 2005) and consequences
(Belaid and TemessekBehi, 2011; Ilicic and Webster, 2014;
Kowalczyk and Pounders, 2016; Park et al., 2010; Vlachos and
Vrechopoulos, 2012) have been investigated separately. By
verifying these relationships within one integrated model, this
study provides insight not only into the process through which
emotional attachment is formed but also into the mechanism
through which emotional attachment ultimately affects brand
equity. Finally, this study complements the current literature on
influencers by being the first to approach the idea of an influencer
as a brand itself rather than a brand endorser. Given that
influencer marketing is becoming popular in industry practices,
previous research focused primarily on finding out how to
maximize the marketing effect. Here, we focused on the
fundamental question of how influencers can increase their
human brand equity. We uncovered whether and how
emotional attachment and brand trust influence long-term
brand equity (i.e. loyalty) of an influencer brand. Building a
strong influencer brand is a precondition for the success of
influencer marketing. Hence, this study provides an important
stepping stone for future influencer research.
The current study has the following managerial implications.
First, the results provide guidance to influencer brands that
want to build strong brand equity. Mckinsey & Company
(2018) reported that generation Z is constantly switching
brands, thereby making the achievement of brand loyalty more
difficult than ever for most companies. Our results show that
interactivity enhances authenticity and that both interactivity
and authenticity play important roles in the long-term brand
equity formation of influencers. Influencers tend to post a large
number of content to maintain their followers. However,
 Building influencer brand equity
Sunghee Jun and Jisu Yi
content delivery should not be transmitted unidirectionally.
In addition, forming an intimacy that seems to be a real
dialogue with the influencer through continuous interaction is
important for the followers. Influencers can increase their
interactivity not only by sharing professional knowledge but
also by engaging with their everyday lives, which leads to active
reactions. Influencers also help further leverage the positive
effects of interactivity when they can quickly identify the needs
of their followers and reflect them in new content that will be
posted as a response. For instance, influencers can use real-
time communication through Instagram Live or respond to
specific followers through their own events or promotions
frequently. This proactive interaction, unlike the case with
previous celebrities, is a differentiating point and survival
strategy that only influencers have. Consequently, this
continuous communication will help followers feel that the
influencer cares for them and is doing his or her best to do their
work, enhancing the authenticity of the influencer. Park Mak-rye,
who is known as the “Korea Grandma,” is a good example of
formulating brand loyalty by enhancing interactivity and
authenticity. She is a popular 72-year-old YouTuber and has
garnered one million subscribers across age groups in just two
years. She provides response-generating content and higher
interactivity by calling her subscribers “Naepyeondra,” which
means “my kids” in Korean. She checks all the comments and
replies from her followers and delivers her honest thoughts about
life to her subscribers in a friendly tone. Her followers perceive a
high level of authenticity in her. Park’s content reflects her daily
and unaffected behaviors. Her videos also contain blunt words,
which make people feel as if they were interacting with their own
grandmothers, rather than offending them. The vivid interactivity
in direct communication maximizes authenticity by making
subscribers feel significant emotions for her and her candid
content, thereby reinforcing emotional bonds. As a successful
YouTuber who has been interviewed by the BBC, Park
exemplifies the importance of interactivity and authenticity in
building strong influencer brands. Second, this study provides
implications for brand managers or agents who want to leverage
the effect of influencer marketing. Influencer marketing has gone
mainstream and is currently considered the most advanced
marketing strategy. Hence, a basic understanding of influencers
as human brands is essential before specific establishing strategies
for influencer marketing. Specifically, the results of this study can
help identify the most appropriate brand endorsers for the brands
in different influencer marketing situations. Influencer marketing
has explosively grown in recent years and mega-influencers have
the highest reach on influencer marketing campaigns. However,
people are increasingly wary of the sponsored content posted by
these kinds of influencers, and the degree of this belief is the key
to success of influencer marketing (Bailey, 2007; Boerman et al.,
2017). Therefore, rather than simply choosing an influencer with
a high following (i.e. mega influencer), finding an influencer who
has steadily built up emotional attachment and trust with
followers that may alleviate doubts is important for brand and
influencer marketing agents. Therefore, brand and marketing
agents consider interactivity and authenticity as essential
determinants of these emotional attachment and brand trust.
Inferring a specific influencer’s emotional attachment or brand
trust is a demanding task that requires substantial time and
information, whereas investigating the level of interactivity
Journal of Product & Brand Management
and authenticity by reviewing past postings could be a more
feasible tactic. For example, identifying how actively the
influencer communicates with his/her followers and how much
the influencer enjoys their social media activities serves as good
proxies for interactivity and authenticity, respectively. Our
findings highlight the fact that these considerations can maximize
the effectiveness of influencer marketing.
Limitations and future research
Although this study contributes to the exploration of influencer
brands, certain limitations require further investigation. The
first limitation is the potential issue with self-selected
influencers. This study did not restrict certain individual
influencers but asked participants to remember an influencer
they are following. Thus, differences may exist in the activity
area of influencers or the motivation of followers (e.g. utilitarian
vs hedonic) because the range of influencers mentioned by the
subjects cannot be controlled. Future studies should test the
proposed model to determine if certain relationships are
strengthened by narrowing the scope of influencers. In addition,
the self-selection caused a problem in which the respondents
merely chose an influencer with high perceived authenticity.
When asked to select a single influencer, the respondents were
most likely to come up with a top-of-mind influencer they like.
The responses for authenticity may have been upward because
likability is closely related to the perception of authenticity.
Motivating people to recall several influencers they are following
is necessary so that the sample can include influencers with
various levels of authenticity. Second, although we paid
particular attention to brand loyalty among components of
brand equity, future research may investigate various
components of brand equity, such as association, perceived
quality and awareness. In that case, cognitive attachment in
addition to emotional attachment would play an important role.
Such an investigation will provide a comprehensive
understanding of how influencers’ brand equity can be
enhanced. Finally, we conceptually uncovered why interactivity
plays an important role in the influencer brand. However, a
detailed verification is needed to confirm that the effect is
unique to influencer brands. Subsequent studies may further
investigate its uniqueness by applying the proposed model to
other types of brands (e.g. traditional or other human brands).
References
Audrezet, A., De Kerviler, G. and Moulard, J.G. (2018),
“Authenticity under threat: when social media influencers
need to go beyond self-presentation”, Journal of Business
Research, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.008.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of
structural equation models”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Bailey, A.A. (2007), “Public information and consumer
skepticism effects on celebrity endorsements: studies among
young consumers”, Journal of Marketing Communications,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 85-107.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “Moderator-mediator
variables distinction in social psychological research:
 Building influencer brand equity
Sunghee Jun and Jisu Yi
conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Belaid, S. and TemessekBehi, A. (2011), “The role of
attachment in building consumer-brand relationships: an
empirical investigation in the utilitarian consumption
context”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20
No. 1, pp. 37-47.
Bentler, P.M. (1990), “Comparative fit indexes in structural
models”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107 No. 2, pp. 238-246.
Beverland, M.B. and Farrelly, F.J. (2010), “The quest for
authenticity in consumption: consumers’ purposive choice of
authentic cues to shape experienced outcomes”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 838-856.
Boerman, S.C., Willemsen, L.M. and Van Der Aa, E.P.
(2017), “‘This post is sponsored’: effects of sponsorship
disclosure on persuasion knowledge and electronic word of
mouth in the context of Facebook”, Journal of Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 38, pp. 82-92.
Brown, D. and Hayes, N. (2008), Influencer Marketing: Who
Really Influences Your Customers, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “The chain of
effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand
performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 81-93.
Cheung, G.W. and Lau, R.S. (2008), “Testing mediation and
suppression effects of latent variables. Bootstrapping with
structural equation models”, Organizational Research
Methods, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 296-325.
Cho, C.H. and Cheon, H.J. (2005), “Cross-cultural
comparisons of interactivity on corporate web sites: the
United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, and South
Korea”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 99-115.
Chung, S. and Cho, H. (2017), “Fostering parasocial
relationships with celebrities on social media: implications
for celebrity endorsement”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 34
No. 4, pp. 481-495.
Colliander, J. and Dahlén, M. (2011), “Following the
fashionable friend: the power of social media: weighing
publicity effectiveness of blogs versus online magazines”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 313-320.
Coyle, J.R. and Thorson, E. (2001), “The effects of progressive
levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites”,
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 65-77.
Coyle, J.R., Smith, T. and Platt, G. (2012), “I’m here to help”
how companies’ microblog responses to consumer problems
influence brand perceptions”, Journal of Research in
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 27-41.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2002), “Overview of self-
determination theory: an organismic dialectical perspective”,
Handbook of Self-Determination Research, The University of
Rochester Press, Rochester, New York, NY, pp. 3-33.
Delgado-Ballester, E. and Luis Munuera-Aleman, J. (2005),
“Does brand trust matter to brand equity?”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 187-196.
Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer loyalty: toward an
integrated conceptual framework”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Djafarova, E. and Rushworth, C. (2017), “Exploring the
credibility of online celebrities’ Instagram profiles in
Journal of Product & Brand Management
influencing the purchase decisions of young female users”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 68, pp. 1-7.
Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J.P. (1997), “An examination of the
nature of trust in buyer – seller relationships”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 35-51.
Drigotas, S.M. and Rusbult, C.E. (1992), “Should I stay or
should I go? A dependence model of breakups”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 62-87.
Dwivedi, A. and McDonald, R. (2018), “Building brand
authenticity in fast-moving consumer goods via consumer
perceptions of Brand marketing communications”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 Nos 7/8, pp. 1387-1411.
Eggers, F., O’Dwyer, M., Kraus, S., Vallaster, C. and
Güldenberg, S. (2013), “The impact of brand authenticity
on brand trust and SME growth: a CEO perspective”,
Journal of World Business, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 340-348.
Enders, C.K. (2005), “An SAS macro for implementing
the modified bollen-stine bootstrap for missing data:
implementing the bootstrap using existing structural
equation modeling software”, Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 620-641.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Furedi, F. (2010), “Celebrity culture”, Society, Vol. 47 No. 6,
pp. 493-497.
Gamson, J. (2011), “The unwatched life is not worth living: the
elevation of the ordinary in celebrity culture”, PMLA,
Vol. 126 No. 4, pp. 1061-1069.
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), “The different roles
of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer
relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 70-87.
Grisaffe, D.B. and Nguyen, H.P. (2011), “Antecedents of
emotional attachment to brands”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 64 No. 10, pp. 1052-1059.
Ha, L. and James, E.L. (1998), “Interactivity reexamined: a
baseline analysis of early business web sites”, Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 457-474.
Hair, J., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010),
Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Hazan, C. and Shaver, P.R. (1994), “Attachment as an
organizational framework for research on close relationships”,
Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Hearn, A. and Schoenhoff, S. (2016), From Celebrity to
Influencer, Wiley, London, pp. 194-212.
Hernandez-Fernandez, A. and Lewis, M.C. (2019), “Brand
authenticity leads to perceived value and brand trust”,
European Journal of Management and Business Economics,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 222-238.
Ilicic, J. and Webster, C.M. (2014), “Investigating consumer –
brand relational authenticity”, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 342-363.
Ilicic, J., Baxter, S.M. and Kulczynski, A. (2016), “The impact
of age on consumer attachment to celebrities and endorsed
brand attachment”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 273-288.
Jin, S.A.A. and Phua, J. (2014), “Following celebrities’ tweets
about brands: the impact of twitter-based electronic word-of-
mouth on consumers’ source credibility perception, buying
 Building influencer brand equity
Sunghee Jun and Jisu Yi
intention, and social identification with celebrities”, Journal
of Advertising, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 181-195.
Johns, R. and English, R. (2016), “Transition of self:
repositioning the celebrity brand through social media – the
case of Elizabeth Gilbert”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 65-72.
Jones, E.E. and Davis, K.E. (1965), “From acts to dispositions
the attribution process in person perception”, Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 219-266.
Kay, S., Mulcahy, R. and Parkinson, J. (2020), “When less is
more: the impact of macro and micro social media
influencers’ disclosure”, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 36 Nos 3/4, doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2020.1718740.
Khamis, S., Ang, L. and Welling, R. (2017), “Self-branding,
‘micro-celebrity’ and the rise of social media influencers”,
Celebrity Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 191-208.
Kim, J., Spielmann, N. and McMillan, S.J. (2012),
“Experience effects on interactivity: functions, processes,
and perceptions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65
No. 11, pp. 1543-1550.
Kotler, P., Keller, K.L., Ang, S.H., Tan, C.T. and Leong, S.M.
(2018), Marketing Management: An Asian Perspective, Pearson.
Kowalczyk, C.M. and Pounders, K.R. (2016), “Transforming
celebrities through social media: the role of authenticity and
emotional attachment”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 345-356.
Labrecque, L.I. (2014), “Fostering consumer-brand relationships
in social media environments: the role of parasocial interaction”,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 134-148.
Laroche, M., Habibi, M.R. and Richard, M.O. (2013), “To be
or not to be in social media: how brand loyalty is affected
by social media?”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 76-82.
Larsson, A.O. (2018), “The news user on social media: a
comparative study of interacting with media organizations on
Facebook and Instagram”, Journalism Studies, Vol. 19
No. 15, pp. 2225-2242.
Lee, H. and Park, H. (2013), “Testing the impact of message
interactivity on relationship management and organizational
reputation”, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 188-206.
Liao, S. and Ma, Y.Y. (2009), “Conceptualizing consumer
need for product authenticity”, International Journal of
Business and Information, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 89-114.
Loroz, P.S. and Braig, B.M. (2015), “Consumer attachments
to human brands: the ‘Oprah effect’”, Psychology &
Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 751-763.
Lou, C. and Yuan, S. (2018), “Influencer marketing: how
message value and credibility affect consumer trust of
branded content on social media”, Journal of Interactive
Advertising, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 58-73.
Mckinsey & Company (2018), “‘True gen’: generation Z and its
implications for companies”, available at: www.mckinsey.com/
industries/consumer-packaged-goods/our-insights/true-gen-
generation-z-and-its-implications-for-companies (accessed
15 August 2019).
McMillan, S.J. (2002), “Exploring models of interactivity from
multiple research traditions: users, documents, and
systems”, in Lievrouw, L. and Livingstone, S. (Eds),
Handbook of New Media, Sage, London, pp. 205-229.
Journal of Product & Brand Management
McMillan, S.J. and Hwang, J.S. (2002), “Measures of
perceived interactivity: an exploration of the role of direction
of communication, user control, and time in shaping
perceptions of interactivity”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 31
No. 3, pp. 29-42.
Malär, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W.D. and Nyffenegger, B.
(2011), “Emotional brand attachment and brand
personality: the relative importance of the actual and the
ideal self”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 35-52.
Marwick, A. and Boyd, D. (2011), “To see and be seen: celebrity
practice on twitter”, Convergence: The International Journal of
Research into New Media Technologies, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 139-158.
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R. and Zaltman, G. (1993),
“Factors affecting trust in market research relationships”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 81-101.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-
trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Moulard, J.G., Garrity, C.P. and Rice, D.H. (2015), “What
makes a human brand authentic? Identifying the antecedents
of celebrity authenticity”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 32
No. 2, pp. 173-186.
Moulard, J.G., Raggio, R.D. and Folse, J.A.G. (2016), “Brand
authenticity: testing the antecedents and outcomes of brand
management’s passion for its products”, Psychology &
Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 421-436.
Napoli, J., Dickinson, S.J., Beverland, M.B. and Farrelly, F.
(2014), “Measuring consumer-based brand authenticity”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 6, pp. 1090-1098.
Napoli, J., Dickinson-Delaporte, S. and Beverland, M.B.
(2016), “The brand authenticity continuum: strategic
approaches for building value”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 32 Nos 13/14, pp. 1201-1229.
Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the
Consumer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Pappu, R., Quester, P.G. and Cooksey, R.W. (2005),
“Consumer-based brand equity: improving the measurement –
empirical evidence”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 143-154.
Park, C.W. and MacInnis, D.J. (2006), “What’s in and what’s
out: questions on the boundaries of the attitude construct”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 16-18.
Park, C.W., MacInnis, D.J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A.B. and
Iacobucci, D. (2010), “Brand attachment and brand attitude
strength: conceptual and empirical differentiation of two
critical brand equity drivers”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74
No. 6, pp. 1-17.
Preece, C. (2015), “The authentic celebrity brand: unpacking
Ai WeiWei’scelebritised selves”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 616-645.
Rafaeli, S. (1988), “Interactivity: from new media to
communication”, in Hawkins, R.P., Wiemann, J.M. and
Pingree, S. (Eds), Sage Annual Review of Communication
Research: Advancing Communication Science, Sage, Beverly
Hills, CA, pp. 110-134.
Raun, T. (2018), “Capitalizing intimacy: new subcultural forms
of micro-celebrity strategies and affective labour on
YouTube”, Convergence: The International Journal of Research
into New Media Technologies, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 99-113.
 Building influencer brand equity
Sunghee Jun and Jisu Yi
Rossiter, J. and Bellman, S. (2012), “Emotional branding pays
off: how brands meet share of requirements through
bonding, companionship, and love”, Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 291-296.
Schallehn, M., Burmann, C. and Riley, N. (2014), “Brand
authenticity: model development and empirical testing”, Journal
of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 192-199.
Song, J.H. and Zinkhan, G.M. (2008), “Determinants of
perceived web site interactivity”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Statista (2019), “Percentage of US population with a social
media profile from 2008 to 2018”, available at: www.statista.
com/statistics/273476/percentage-of-us-population-with-
a-social-network-profile (accessed 26 February 2019).
Steuer, J. (1992), “Defining virtual reality: dimensions
determining telepresence”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 42
No. 4, pp. 73-93.
Su, J. and Tong, X. (2015), “Brand personality and brand
equity: evidence from the sportswear industry”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 124-133.
Tan, B.J., Brown, M. and Pope, N. (2019), “The role of
respect in the effects of perceived ad interactivity and
intrusiveness on brand and site”, Journal of Marketing
Communications, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 288-306.
 B. and Eren-Erdo
gmus
Tatar, S _ (2016), “The effect of social
, I.
media marketing on brand trust and brand loyalty for hotels”,
Information Technology & Tourism, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 249-263.
Thomson, M. (2006), “Human brands: investigating antecedents
to consumers’ strong attachments to celebrities”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 104-119.
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J. and Park, C.W. (2005), “The
ties that bind: measuring the strength of consumers’
emotional attachments to brands”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 77-91.
Thorson, K.S. and Rodgers, S. (2006), “Relationships between
blogs as eWOM and interactivity, perceived interactivity,
and parasocial interaction”, Journal of Interactive Advertising,
Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 5-44.
Vlachos, P.A. and Vrechopoulos, A.P. (2012), “Consumer –
retailer love and attachment: antecedents and personality
moderators”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 218-228.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Vlachos, P.A., Theotokis, A., Pramatari, K. and Vrechopoulos,
A. (2010), “Consumer-retailer emotional attachment: some
antecedents and the moderating role of attachment anxiety”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 Nos 9/10,
pp. 1478-1499.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), “An examination of
selected marketing mix elements and brand equity”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 195-211.
Zehir, C., S ahin, A., Kitapçı, H. and Özs ahin, M. (2011),
“The effects of brand communication and service quality in
building brand loyalty through brand trust; the empirical
research on global brands”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 24, pp. 1218-1231.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G. and Chen, Q. (2010), “Reconsidering
Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation
analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 197-206.
Further reading
Garnès, V. (2019), “What is ‘influencer interactivity’ and how
can brands leverage it to their advantage?”, available at:
www.forbes.com/sites/forbescommunicationscouncil/2019/
12/09/what-is-influencer-interactivity-and-how-can-brands-
leverage-it-to-their-advantage/#2f39ac0b9eef (accessed 20
February 2020).
About the authors
Sunghee Jun is a Researcher at The Institute of Management
Research of Seoul National University. She received her PhD
in Marketing at Seoul National University. Her research is in
the areas of emotion and consumer behavior social cognition
and influencer marketing.
Jisu Yi is an Assistant Professor at the Department of
Business Administration, Sejong University, Seoul, Korea.
She received her PhD in marketing at Seoul National
University. Her areas of expertise include digital marketing,
content marketing, high-tech marketing and big data analysis.
Jisu Yi is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
jisuyi@sejong.ac.kr and jisuvic1@snu.ac.kr